ILNews

Editorial: New judges add more than needed diversity

Rebecca Collier
June 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Those of us on staff here at the newspaper that grew up in Indiana and were of a certain age to pay attention to the news can likely recall when Judge Sarah Evans Barker was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

It was a big deal, the first female federal judge here, in an era when few women were in positions of power and authority. All of a sudden, here was a role model, though she may not have wanted that job. Someone for women who were young at the time to look to and consider “Well, if she can be a federal judge, then why can’t I ____?” and we filled in our own blank. She’s an intelligent woman, whose quick wit and easy manner we’d later discover puts people at ease, and a gifted storyteller.

Fast-forward about 30 years – how could it have taken 30 years? – and then there were two female federal judges with the addition of the Hon. Theresa Springmann in Indiana’s Northern District. Judge Springmann had been a magistrate judge in that court before being confirmed as an Article III judge in 2003.

What Judge Barker says in a news story in this issue of the newspaper about the absolutely historic confirmation of Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and Judge Tanya Walton Pratt is worth repeating here:

“You may not be able to tell any difference in work product or whether an opinion is written by a man or woman judge, but this will enhance the quality of justice and makes it deeper and broader and even more credible.”

That’s what bringing diversity to the federal bench will do for all of us.

“Their coming to the court is so special and new, but it’s been a long time coming,” Judge Barker continued speaking about her new colleagues. “It matters so much that the bench is diverse, and in rapid order we’ve gone to being a majority on the court after many years of being a distinct minority.”

It also matters more than words can express that the federal bench in Indiana finally has its first African-American judge. Judge Pratt may now be a member of a majority on the federal bench in the Southern District, but she is still a part of a distinct minority.

“This has been a test of patience,” Judge Pratt told our reporter, speaking about the nomination process, “but I’m so very happy and honored. I do respect the historic significance of being the first African-American in the state to join the federal bench, and that’s really a credit to Sen. (Evan) Bayh for looking outside the traditional group of candidates to be inclusive.”

One can hardly overstate the importance of having an African-American judge on the federal bench, for the same reason Judge Barker was such an inspiration for all Indiana women who would take notice of her, even those who would never attend a law school.

“You have to have those distinguished role models … so you can see others work hard and do it, and know that you can, too,” Judge Pratt said. She and Judge Magnus-Stinson are of the same mind when they said that one of the best parts of all this has been to see the pride in their daughters’ eyes over their accomplishments. “Any little girl can do it.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT